Can the ATF make you a criminal by redefining what you already have in your home as a “firearm”? Not in this case. MSLF just obtained a major victory, along with its co-counsel the Firearms Policy Coalition, in the VanDerStok v. Garland matter.
Supporters of Mountain States are well-aware of VanDerStok. Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a new rule that improperly defined a range of inert objects as “firearms.” But the definition contradicted the text of the federal Gun Control Act. With this effort to rewrite federal regulations, Biden tried to make countless individuals criminals. But Mountain States and FPC sued, and argued that the rule was illegal, on behalf of Jennifer VanDerStok, Mike Andren, and Tactical Machining. Our winning argument was that the ATF exceeded its authority, as outlined by Congress.
On June 30th, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of our clients! That is, we won! This is a huge step forward to undoing the damage wrought by the ATF. We’re sure that there will be an appeal from the ATF. And we stand ready for that. But for now, it’s time to celebrate our freedoms, and a major victory on behalf of the Constitution.
Read some of Judge O’Connor’s concluding words in his opinion (note: “defendants” refers to the ATF):
In sum, there is a legal distinction between a weapon parts kit, which may be an aggregation of partially manufactured parts not subject to the agency’s regulatory authority, and a “weapon” which “may readily be completed [or] assembled . . . to expel a projectile.” Defendants contend that drawing such a distinction will produce the absurd result whereby a person lawfully prohibited from possessing a firearm can obtain the necessary components and, given advances in technology, self-manufacture a firearm with relative ease and efficiency. Even if it is true that such an interpretation creates loopholes that as a policy matter should be avoided, it not the role of the judiciary to correct them. That is up to Congress. And until Congress enacts a different statute, the Court is bound to enforce the law as written.
We couldn’t agree more.
